RAJEEV RANJAN vs LAL BABU MAHTO

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 28.12.2010 passed by the Chhatisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 206/2009, "Lal Babu Mahto versus Rajeev Ranjan" by which while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing the complaint was set aside.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant - respondent purchased one plastic moulding semi-automatic machine from OP-petitioner on 10.10.2013, but machine could not function for want of supply of raw material. It was further alleged that machine was also defective and no care was taken by OP in spite of warranty period which extended upto 5 years. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite Party resisted complaint and submitted that neither the supply of raw material was stopped nor there was any defect in the machinery and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed the complaint. Complainant filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal and directed Opposite party to pay 1,60,000/- towards price of the machine and further to

pay 20,000/- for mental agony with 8% interest p.a. against which this revision petition has been filed alongwith application for condonation of delay.

Heard learned counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused the record.

As far condonation of delay is concerned, petitioner has filed application and submitted that petitioner came to know about impugned order in first week of March 2013 from his friend then he applied for certified copy on 19.03.2013 which was received on 25.03.2013 and revision petition was filed on 15.04.2013.

Perusal of impugned order reveals that learned State Commission decided appeal without service of notice on petitioner. There is nothing on record to substantiate that free copy of impugned order was sent to petitioner by State Commission in such circumstances it can be presumed that petitioner came to know about impugned order in first week of March 2013 and after obtaining certified copy filed revision petition on 15.04.2013 which is well in limitation and in such circumstances, there is no delay in filing the revision petition and even if there is delay, delay stands condoned.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission committed error in condoning delay of 512 days and allowing appeal without affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that as appeal was old, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.

District Forum dismissed complaint against which complainant preferred appeal. Perusal of impugned order reveals that no reason has been assigned for condoning 512 days in filing appeal. Not only this, learned State Commission observed that notice issued to respondent was returned unserved and no further steps were taken for service of notice but as case was old one, it was decided on merits.

Perusal of impugned order makes it clear that impugned order was passed by learned State Commission without serving of notice on the petitioner. It was not expected from State Commission to decide appeal and reverse order of District Forum without serving notice on the petitioner and without giving an opportunity of having heard. Impugned order has been passed in disregard of principles of natural justice and impugned order is liable to set aside.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 28.12.2011 passed by learned State Commission in appeal No. 206/2009, "Lal Babu Mahto versus Rajeev Ranjan" is set aside and matter is remanded back to State Commission to decide application for condonation of delay as well appeal on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 07.08.2015.